Amelius Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 The purpose of ethics, as I see it, is to guide one's behavior.Now, I think it's safe to assume that we all agree that that which goes against NAP and fails UPB is unethical.My question remains: What of the behaviors that do NOT go against NAP and pass UPB; are they ethical or is there some other criterion that one ought to factor in?For example, cussing at some random person on the street does not go against NAP and passes UPB; is it therefore ethical? Is it unethical?(Or is it amoral?)I guess what my question boils down to is this: Ought we consider other factors when assessing ethics other than NAP and UPB? (Like consequentialism, for example)Also, if we want to know how to act in a certain situation, does it always boil down to "ethics", or is there some other realm of inquiry that one needs to use?(other than "ethics"?)Note: My question may be faulty or nonsensical since I did not fully read Stef's book on UPB; so forgive my ignorance if that is the case.
MysterionMuffles Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 Cussing at someone randomly is a form of aggression. You're using hurtful tone and words to modify their inner physiology to get scared of you or get shocked.
Pepin Posted August 30, 2013 Posted August 30, 2013 There are aesthetically unpreferable behavior, which: cussing at someone, being late, being a free-rider, and so on would be included in. These are a different in the range of solutions as violence is not an option. Rather, these issues would need to be penalized or solved through voluntary means. If you receive poor service at a restaurant, you don't have the ability to take a twenty from the cash drawer, but you do have the ability to not go again and to warn others. If your friend does something extremely rude and makes you really mad, you don't have the ability to break their legs, but you do have the ability to stop seeing them and to tell others what he/she did. The main aspect to keep in mind about ethical theories that permit violence in response is that they must be air tight in the logic reasoning. It isn't a solution that can be casually asserted. On the other hand, any sort of problem that can solved through voluntarism does extend any ability you don't already have. Also, any ethical theory does not tell you how to act in a situation. If someone mugs you and you are fully capable of fighting back, there is no ethical positive obligation that you ought to fight back or take X action, it only claims that you have the ability to use violence in response. There might be arguments as to the best action to take to achieve a desired result, but that is not ethics. It might help to think about aesthetic ethics in terms of relationship advice. It is non-binding, somewhat non-objective, and circumstantial. With that said, we would still say that there is good and bad ways of dealing with the problem. We would also say that there is objectively nonsensical solutions to the problem. For instance: if your husband is an alcoholic, it bothers you to an extreme state, yet you don't bring it up to him and you buy him beer and will bring it to him during the game. Bad advice would be to say to keep doing what you are doing. Good advice would be practice talking about it, and then when he is sober to bring it up and talk about it. Nonsensical advice would be to say to perform a satanic ritual to Paper Mario while jumping out of an airplane. Cussing at someone randomly is a form of aggression. You're using hurtful tone and words to modify their inner physiology to get scared of you or get shocked. Verbal matters like this is a little more difficult because there is a lot more grey. There is one end of the spectrum where it is clearly aggression such as the case of verbal abuse, and another end of the spectrum where it might affect you, but where it could really only be categorized as rude. There is also a subjective component to language which complicates matters even more. I feel as though you'd agree with this, I just want to point out that responding with force in all cases likely wouldn't be considered just.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Cursing at someone randomly is kinda threatening behavior. So it may not pass the nap or upb. I do not agree that it is necessarily aggression as it's one of those things where the threat of force is not explicit. Simply modifying someone's inner physiology is not enough to qualify it as aggression. There needs to be a threat of force for that. I think you need to give an example of a behavior that is unambiguously not a violation of upb/nap in order for the question to be answered. I can only think of aesthetically non-preferable things as examples. But those things are not ethical questions.
PatrickC Posted August 31, 2013 Posted August 31, 2013 Check out the reference to aesthetically preferred actions (APA) in the book. Cussing falls under this definition.
Recommended Posts